English
"Permitted" appears to be said referring to "from the retrospection of path, fruit, and Nibbāna." The meaning here is this: when one sees the aggregates that are the object of Nibbāna with the knowledge of past lives, and reflects, "What indeed caused these phenomena to arise?", then the knowledge of past lives operates with Nibbāna as its object. The same method applies to the knowledge of future events. If so, why is it that in the section on the limited, where it says, "The immeasurable phenomenon is a condition for the exalted phenomenon by way of the object condition" (Paṭṭhāna 2.12.58), and in the section on the internal, where it says, "The external phenomenon is a condition for the external phenomenon, the external phenomenon is a condition for the internal phenomenon by way of the object condition," in the analyses of these, only this much is stated: "External aggregates are a condition for the knowledge of psychic powers, the knowledge of knowing others' minds, the knowledge of past lives, the knowledge of knowing the results of actions, the knowledge of future events, and advertence, by way of the object condition" (Paṭṭhāna 2.20.29), and Nibbāna is not mentioned? ...they are not mentioned. If it is said that they are mentioned together with the knowledges of mind-penetration, psychic powers, etc., even so, it should be divided separately. For what is not fit to be divided separately, does it divide together? No, because there is another reason for not stating it. For indeed, the knowledges of past lives and future events for ordinary people, for them Nibbāna is indeed beyond their scope. But for the Noble Ones, who have realized Nibbāna through the review of path and fruit, there is no purpose in making it directly perceptible with these knowledges. Therefore, it should be understood that Nibbāna is not mentioned because the knowledges of psychic powers, etc., are taken in a general sense. It speaks of knowing the arisen aggregates, not of knowing the aggregates that cause arising. For that is the function of the knowledge of how beings fare according to their kamma. This, "the meaning is possible," is said with reference to the future-knowledge also not having Nibbāna as its object. In the triad of "having the path as object," since among the mind-states taught in the section on mind-states, there are none that exclusively have the path as object, but sometimes they are dominant over the path, therefore, by asking only one question, "Which phenomena have the path as object?", all three parts are divided as obtainable. In this way, the meaning should be understood in similar places elsewhere. To prove the absence of path-conditionality for the phenomena called "mind-states" and "having the path as object," this causal statement "because of not arising together" is said, meaning "because of not being associated." For that reason, it is said, "for indeed, non-material phenomena..." and so on. Since the emphasis "only when having other phenomena as object" is not taken, it should be understood that this meaning, that even when having the path as object, they are not to be called "dominant over the path" without making it important, is also accepted in the commentary. For since it is said "when reviewing with importance," it exists even when reviewing without importance. And then, those phenomena are not to be called "dominant over the path," thus this meaning is further established. "Having past objects" is extracted, but the commentary reading "having past objects" is seen in many books. Therefore, since dependent... In the commentary on the Analysis of the Threefold Origin (Vibh.A. 227), it is said, "At the time of death, relatives say, 'Father, this Buddha-puja is being performed for your benefit, gladden your mind!'" and so on. By this, it is stated that the presentation of sense objects like visible forms to the five doors, the occurrence of fourteen consciousnesses that conclude with those objects, and then the rebirth consciousness arises in that very object, which lasts for a single moment of consciousness, thus explaining that rebirth consciousness has a present object. That is the meaning. Two bhavangas, the adverting consciousness, five javanas whose speed is weakened due to the proximity of death, two tadārammaṇas, and the death consciousness—eleven moments of consciousness have passed. Therefore, it is said, "with a remaining lifespan of five moments of consciousness." "In the other case" refers to a death consciousness without tadārammaṇa. Now, to explain in detail the meaning briefly stated as "in the other case," it begins with "when indeed." Because the death consciousness lacks tadārammaṇa and the rebirth consciousness has a present object, it is exemplified as "visible forms... when arising." Six bhavangas are present objects, nine moments of consciousness have passed, so it should be understood that rebirth consciousness occurs in the destination-sign with a remaining lifespan of seven moments of consciousness. By saying "it makes only the existing body the object," it shows that the present aggregate of material qualities, which is the basis for future existence, is made to undergo rapid change through the perception of ease and lightness, not that which is yet to be. "Within this interval" means from the time of obscurity until the time of clarity, within this period. Since for some, something becomes clear quickly, and for others slowly, it is said "one or two continuous periods" without specifying. Some say, "It is said in terms of verbal smoothness." Others, however, say, "When the material and immaterial phenomena occurring within this interval are taken as present, there is one continuous period. This is then divided into two: starting from the obscure period, one part is mostly before the clear period, and the other part starts mostly from the clear period until it is very clear, these two continuous periods." intervals. In this way, the divisions of the series of past intervals should also be understood. There, not taking the equality of all things in terms of time, the division of the series is shown in terms of the similar occurrence of phenomena, so they say. Even material phenomena, arising from season, mind, etc., though occurring similarly for some time, are called series-intervals. As it is said, "extremely short," etc., the immaterial series here should be understood as included, delimited by the aforementioned material series. "It is gathered in present phenomena" is said as a place to be drawn by craving and views. "Whatever mind, friends, and whatever phenomena" means that when the subject and object, being of one existence and belonging to one series, are taken without division, it is definitely present. But when a division is made, momentary-series-presentness is obtained, so it says, "this duality, being definitely present, occurs." "Of that" means of the multitude. "Without making a division of past, etc." shows the method of the similar occurrence of adverting, etc. "It is accomplished" means that even with a momentary-present object, this Pāli passage is well-applied to preparatory and mind-penetrating knowledges. "And the past triad is thus undifferentiated" means that when phenomena are taken as present here, only in the momentary present, revealing the condition of the contiguous condition as included in another term, the past triad in the Paṭṭhāna is undifferentiated, its meaning correctly extracted, and it is not destroyed. Or, "the past triad" refers to the past triad Pāli passage in the Paṭṭhāna; by this past triad Pāli passage, for the very reason mentioned, it is undifferentiated, not distinct, but rather corresponds and agrees. "As far as possible" should be connected as: the future as the object of adverting, the present and past as the objects of javanas, the future, present, and past as the objects. "There would not be different objects" means the intention is that it would be present as an object in terms of time. And this meaning is in the occurrence of adverting, etc., in one javana-process, in one mind, with future, etc., as objects. It is said as "arising from existing" in the sense of showing origination, to connect the occurrence of the intended supernormal knowledge mind in the present moment, he said "therefore" and so on. Three, meaning that the dhammas included in the word-segments "a past object dhamma is a condition for a past object dhamma by way of repetition condition, a future object dhamma is a condition for a future object dhamma by way of repetition condition, a present object dhamma is a condition for a present object dhamma by way of repetition condition" (Paṭṭhāna 2.19.34) are not dependent on each other, and these dhammas are three question-answers. There is no non-repetition, meaning that when repetition is obtained, there is no reason for not stating it in the teaching of the Dhamma, and by not stating it, the refutation of other questions there is understood. Of this view, meaning the view that "even if advertence and javana have future and present objects, the mind-reading knowledge is established." The state of being a basis, meaning the state of illuminating the aforementioned method due to the possibility of meaning. The mind that goes. Of that, meaning the statement that advertence and javana have objects that are present-moment and ceased. And here, it refers to a specific time, and it is not appropriate to say that advertence occurs only in the future. If one makes the intention, "I will know what this mind will be," then the preliminary and supernormal knowledge minds would also have future objects, and thus the future and present object nature of advertence and javana would not be established everywhere, so he says "occurrence... and so on... because it is stated." Due to the occurrence of fault, or from the occurrence of fault. Knowing the advertence of a part of the heap,